`best

1. Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
CASE STUDIES: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES RELEVANT TO
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 METHODS
3.0 CASE STUDIES
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
3.1 Buzzards Bay Project
3.2 Cape Cod Commission
3.3 Chesapeake Bay Commission
3.4 Nisqually River Council
3.5 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
3.6 Southwest Florida Water Management District
3.7 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
4.0 KEY INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
q
q
q
q
q
4.1 Organizational Structure and Participation
4.2 Implementation Authority and Mechanisms
4.3 Financing
4.4 Public Involvement
4.5 Measures of Success
5.0 CONCLUSIONS

2. 6.0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY INTERVIEWEES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Cape Cod Commission
Figure 2. SWFMD Organization Chart
Figure 3. TBRPC Organization Chart
Revised December 15, 1995

3. Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is
now outdated.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The ultimate success of any National Estuary Program management conference can be measured by implementation of
its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). Plan implementation requires a clear understanding
among all participating entities concerning their responsibilities for actions recommended in the CCMP. Because of the
broad scope of environmental problems addressed in the CCMP, it is unlikely that the responsibility for implementation
will fall on a single entity or agency. Rather, the mechanisms and authorities for implementation will more likely reside
with multiple players. This is especially true in cases where the estuary and its watershed overlap multiple jurisdictions
(i.e., towns, cities, counties, states, etc.). For this reason, National Estuary Program management conferences are
required to develop a plan for coordinating the implementation of the CCMP among federal, state, and local agencies.
The goal of this plan is to institutionalize the recommendations made in the CCMP by identifying the "implementers"
and providing a framework for coordinating their efforts. The implementers may include existing agencies and
organizations or new entities, as recommended in the CCMP.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection Division is currently developing guidance to assist National Estuary Program
management conferences in planning for the coordination of CCMP implementation and meeting the requirements of the
Clean Water Act. In support of that effort, this report was developed as a reference document on the experiences of
several existing organizations established to coordinate or oversee implementation of specific environmental
management plans. Rather than providing a comprehensive set of recommendations, this report is a first step in
identifying key factors that should be considered when developing institutional arrangements for CCMP implementation,
based on the experiences of a selected set of existing organizations.
METHODS
The following organizations were selected for analysis in this report in an attempt to provide a diversity of information
relevant to the greatest number of National Estuary Programs:
q
q
q
q
Buzzards Bay Project: A project office and steering committee charged with overseeing implementation of the
approved Buzzards Bay CCMP in Massachusetts.
Cape Cod Commission: A regional land use regulatory agency for Barnstable County, Massachusetts, and its
incorporated municipalities.
Chesapeake Bay Commission: A legislative Commission serving the three Chesapeake Bay states -- Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Nisqually River Council: A coordinating body charged with developing and implementing a comprehensive

4. q
q
q
management plan for the three-county Nisqually River watershed in the State of Washington.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority: A coordinating organization charged with developing a comprehensive
plan for Puget Sound, Washington and overseeing implementation activities in the 12-county region.
Southwest Florida Water Management District: A regulatory entity responsible for managing water and waterrelated resources in all or part of 16 Florida counties.
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council: A regional planning council established to advise the four county Tampa
Bay, Florida region on physical, economic, and social development issues.
A case study approach was used to analyze these organizations, beginning with the collection of written background
information, followed by interviews with key individuals who were either directly affiliated, or had experience, with the
organizations. Case studies were then developed to summarize factual information such as organizational mandate,
geographic scope, implementation authority and mechanisms, focus of implementation, measures of success, methods for
coordinating local government implementation efforts, and methods for involving the public. Lessons learned by the
interviewees were also summarized for each of the case studies.
RESULTS
Organizational Structure and Participation The seven case study organizations represent a broad spectrum of
considerations in terms of their structures and participants:
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
The structure of the current Buzzards Bay Project has evolved from the management conference framework used
to develop the CCMP. Unlike the other six organizations, where staff offices generally function in support of
decision-making bodies, the major oversight effort in the Buzzards Bay Project is focused within the Project's
staff office, using the CCMP as the primary source of guidance.
The structure of the Cape Cod Commission is prescribed by state statute, unlike that of the Buzzards Bay Project,
and is primarily focused on local government participation. In fact, the Commission goes beyond many of the
other six organizations in terms of its inclusiveness of local government; each town within the region has a
member on the Commission's board.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission plays a unique role in the implementation process compared with the other six
organizations. The structure and makeup of the Commission is focused on a subset of the "stakeholder universe"
that is of interest to most of the other six organizations. This focus is at the legislative level of the three
participating states, with no local or federal government participation (although citizen representatives are
appointed from each state).
Like the Cape Cod Commission, the structure of the Nisqually River Council emphasizes inclusive stakeholder
involvement. This level of involvement appears much more easily accomplished in a smaller geographic area,
such as the Nisqually River watershed, than in a larger area. Generally speaking, the larger the area, the greater
the number of political jurisdictions, and the harder it is to effectively include all stakeholder entities.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority also emphasizes stakeholder involvement. In addition, as with all of
the case study organizations except the Buzzards Bay Project, there is a clear hierarchy in terms of the roles
played by the Authority board and the staff office, with the staff office functioning in a support role to the board.
The composition of the Southwest Florida Water Management District is established by a political appointment
system. Because all board members are appointed by the Governor (and confirmed by the state senate), there is at
least the perceived potential for skewing the agenda of the District, depending upon the leanings of its members.
This approach differs from most of the other organizations studied, where a balanced participation on the
governing board is statutorily mandated by a formula.
The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council represents the largest governing board among the seven case study
organizations (38 members). The board is dominated by local government participants (18 municipalities and 4
counties), in keeping with its mission of providing technical assistance and coordinated planning services within
the region.

5. Implementation Authority and Mechanisms
The seven case study organizations can be separated into two distinctive types in terms of the actual authority they
possess to influence implementation:
q
q
The first type of organization, which includes the Buzzards Bay Project, Chesapeake Bay Commission, Nisqually
River Council, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, depends on
a coordinating approach to implementation. Stated another way, none of these organizations (including those
created by statute) possess any legal authority of their own to require implementation. Instead, these organizations
often influence the implementation process through consensus reached among the participating entities. It should
be noted that the individual entities that participate in these coordinating structures often include implementing
agencies that do have legal authority to require implementation. However, this report is primarily concerned with
the authorities of the oversight structures.
The second type of organization goes well beyond the coordination role described above, possessing independent
responsibility for implementing management actions, as well as the legal authority to require their implementation
by other entities through regulation. This type of organization includes the Cape Cod Commission and the
Southwest Florida Water Management District. For example, the Southwest Florida Water Management District
currently has permitting authority for surface water management projects, such as stormwater management.
Therefore, the District has the ability to directly impact these activities in a way that is consistent with its
management goals, rather than having to rely on its ability to influence the actions of others. Similarly, the Cape
Cod Commission may designate Districts of Critical Planning Concern, and thereby provide direct protection to
significant natural and cultural resources. This mechanism is of particular interest, as it ultimately works through
local government authorities, as opposed to superseding them. Once a District of Critical Planning Concern is
designated by the Commission and approved by Barnstable County, a limited moratorium on development is
imposed in the area. The municipality with jurisdiction over the area then develops protective regulations that
must be approved by the Commission. Following this approval, the municipality retains authority to regulate
development in the area.
Financing
The need for a stable funding source for both administrative costs and "on-the-ground" implementation was emphasized
by nearly all of the case study interviewees. With regard to this factor, the most successful of the seven organizations
appear to be the Cape Cod Commission and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. As is typical for many
regulatory agencies, both possess the ability to generate their own funds through taxing authority and the collection of
permit fees. Among the seven structures studied for this report, this capability was unique to these two organizations. In
the absence of revenue generating mechanisms, direct state appropriation appears to be the next most stable source of
funds. However, the continuity of these appropriations is highly influenced by the political environment. For example,
the operating budget for the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority has been reduced each biennium since 1985, due in
large part to overall reductions in the state budget. Other less stable sources of funds for the case study organizations
include state and federal grants. In addition, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council collects annual dues from its
membership. However, these funds are used almost exclusively for administrative costs of the Council. Finally, several
of the organizations have been successful in "leveraging" their funds by securing matching dollars and in-kind services
on a project-by-project basis. For example, the State of Washington's Department of Natural Resources has contributed
staff time to the development of a Nisqually Basin Atlas by the Nisqually River Council. This is a key factor of note to
the National Estuary Programs, since levels of funding required to implement a CCMP in many cases will exceed the
actual availability of funds. The ability to increase the impact of available resources by building partnerships ("getting
more bang for the buck") will be critical to any institutional arrangement developed to oversee implementation.
Public Involvement

6. All of the case study organizations accomplish what might be termed a "baseline" level of public involvement. That is to
say, at a minimum, all of the organizations function in public forums, providing the public with the opportunity to view
and participate in their proceedings. This is typically accomplished through public meetings and hearings, with advance
notification of agendas and public distribution of meeting minutes and summaries. Beyond this baseline level of public
involvement, the seven organizations share certain other tools:
The role of the public relative to implementation varies from organization to organization. Since approval of the
Buzzards Bay CCMP, the Buzzards Bay Project has placed minimal effort, as an organization, into public involvement.
As regulatory agencies, the Cape Cod Commission and the Southwest Florida Water Management District respond to a
somewhat less flexible pressure to involve the public. Because of the legal nature of their functions (e.g., permit
issuance), these agencies must follow standard operating procedures in providing public access to their decisions, usually
including public notices, hearings, and comment periods. The Chesapeake Bay Commission does not have an ongoing
public outreach program of its own. Because of its advisory role within the implementation process, the Commission
contributes to the outreach efforts of the larger Chesapeake Bay Program. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
may conduct the most extensive and proactive public outreach program of the seven case study organizations. The stated
goal of the outreach program (see Section 3.5) leaves no doubt concerning the important role that the public plays in the
implementation process, a role that is partly defined by the nature of the problems being experienced in Puget Sound.
Measures of Success
Demonstrating success is one of the more challenging, yet necessary, aspects of the implementation process. Three basic
factors should be carefully considered when addressing the need to demonstrate success. First, a clear and realistic
definition of successful implementation should be developed and communicated to all stakeholders. For most

7. implementation oversight organizations, this definition is typically driven by the goals and objectives developed during
the planning process. Considered in total, the achievement of these goals and objectives equates to the yardstick that the
stakeholders will use to determine if progress is being made during the implementation process. Second, appropriate and
measurable indicators should be selected that track with this definition. It should be noted that programmatic indicators
(e.g., permits issued) are quite often used systematically in conjunction with environmental indicators (e.g., shellfish
areas opened) to measure outcomes of management actions. Third, results should be communicated through avenues and
in terms that are meaningful to all stakeholders.
The seven case study organizations address these factors in a variety of ways and to various degrees:
q
q
q
q
q
The Buzzards Bay Project focuses primarily on programmatic indicators through an Environmental Report Card.
These instruments track actions that are implemented at the local level, such as acquisition of open space and
establishment of septic system inspection and maintenance programs.
The Cape Cod Commission Regional Policy Plan includes performance standards that are used by the
Commission as criteria in reviewing Developments of Regional Impact and proposed development activities in
Districts of Critical Planning Concern. However, no post-development monitoring is currently conducted in
relation to these activities to determine their effectiveness in meeting the goals of the Regional Policy Plan.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority conducts an extensive environmental monitoring program to establish
baseline conditions in the Sound and measure changes in those conditions as the Water Quality Management Plan
is implemented. However, even with this effort, the Authority has found it difficult to demonstrate to the public,
with certainty, that improvements are directly linked to the plan.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District also conducts extensive environmental monitoring, focused
primarily on water quality parameters. Water conservation efforts are tracked by measuring reductions in water
usage. Various programmatic indicators are also tracked, such as permit violations, through the District's
enforcement program.
The broad mission of regional structures such as the Cape Cod Commission, the Southwest Florida Water
Management District, and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council may make it especially difficult to establish
a comprehensive vision for success. Like the Cape Cod Commission, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
uses the goals set forth in its regional policy plan to communicate its vision for success. However, these kinds of
goals tend to use terms that are very difficult to measure systematically. This is a common dilemma faced by
ongoing management programs.
CONCLUSIONS
This report was developed to serve as a reference document on the experiences of the seven case study organizations,
rather than comprehensive program guidance on governance requirements. As such, the reader should bear in mind that
no one institutional model will necessarily be transferrable to the specific characteristics of another estuary or watershed.
Therefore, in developing plans for overseeing CCMP implementation, National Estuary Programs should be aware of the
variety of different approaches and identify the solutions that are best suited to their specific needs. In some cases, this
will include reliance on existing organizational structures rather than the creation of new oversight entities. In all cases,
National Estuary Programs are encouraged to implement CCMPs using existing authorities to the maximum extent
possible.
The lessons conveyed by the individual case study interviewees emphasize a number of important themes that should be
considered by National Estuary Programs (see Section 3.0 for detailed discussions). The following recommendations
were common among several of the interviewees and, therefore, deserve particular attention:
q
Representation

8. q
Participation in the organizations should focus on those entities that will be expected to play a role in
implementing the CCMP. In addition, individuals designated as members of the organization should have the
authority to speak for, and commit the actions of, the entity that they represent.
Re-education
Because of the long-term nature of CCMP implementation, the oversight structure should incorporate an ongoing
mechanism for educating new members concerning mission, goals, and progress. This is an important aspect of
maintaining momentum over time.
q
Conflicting agendas
Because many oversight organizations consist of individuals who represent other entities, there is always the
potential for conflicts to arise between the individual priorities of those entities and the goals of the oversight
organization. This potential should be recognized when designing an organization, and addressed through
mechanisms such as charters, bylaws, or memoranda of understanding that provide a framework for resolving
these conflicts.
q
Flexibility/Adaptive management
Successful coordination of implementation activities requires recognition of the long-term nature of
implementation, and an ability to adjust to new information as it becomes available. Priorities should be expected
to change over time, and the oversight structure should be flexible enough to accomodate these changes. The need
to add to or modify the participating entities should be addressed.
q
Funding source
Consistent, stable, and long-term sources of funding are critical to the viability of any organizational structure.
This should be considered in terms of both administrative costs and funds for actual implementation activities.
q
Clear mandate
In defining the mission of the oversight organization, it is critical to clearly describe the responsibilities and
authorities of that organization in relation to other entities. This can be a complicated issue, particularly under the
coordinating approach, where the oversight organization depends on the individual authorities of its members but
possesses no actual implementation authority of its own.
Finally, because development of the plan for coordinating CCMP implementation involves numerous and complex
issues, the process for developing such a plan should begin early. Reaching agreements on the structure, responsibility,
authority, and funding of an oversight organization can require much time and effort, and should be included in the
timeline of management plan development. This will allow for a smoother transition from the planning to the
implementation phase, and help to maintain momentum.
Return to the Table of Contents

9. Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Office of Water
Governance Case Studies
Case Studies: Organizational Structures Relevant To Implementation
of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Background
The National Estuary Program was established under section 320 of the Water Quality Act of 1987
(amendments to the Clean Water Act) to "identify nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by
pollution, development, or overuse; promote comprehensive planning for, and conservation and
management of, nationally significant estuaries; encourage the preparation of management plans for
estuaries of national significance; and enhance the coordination of estuarine research." Under the
National Estuary Program, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
authorized to convene management conferences to accomplish seven purposes for these nationally
significant estuaries:
1. Assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses of the estuary.
2. Identify the causes of environmental problems in the estuary.
3. Relate pollutant loads to observed impacts on the uses, water quality, and natural resources of the
estuary.
4. Develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that recommends priority
corrective actions and implementation schedules to address impacts observed in the estuary.

10. 5. Develop a plan for coordinating the implementation of the CCMP among federal, state, and local
agencies.
6. Monitor the effectiveness of actions that are implemented under the CCMP.
7. Ensure the consistency of federal assistance and development programs with the CCMP.
A management conference is the organizational umbrella under which each estuary program is
conducted, representing a partnership across federal, state, and local levels, and designed to reach
consensus on priority problems of the estuary, the causes of those problems, and the actions that must be
taken to correct those problems. National Estuary Program management conferences progress through
four phases in accomplishing the seven purposes:
Phase 1: Convening the management conference and establishing a structure of committees and
procedures for conducting the group's work;
Phase 2: Characterizing the estuary to determine its health, reasons for its decline, and trends for future
conditions; assessing the effectiveness of existing efforts to protect the estuary; and defining the highest
priority problems to be addressed in the CCMP;
Phase 3: Specifying action plans in the CCMP to address priority problems identified through
characterization and public input. The CCMP builds as much as possible on existing state, local, and
federal programs; and
Phase 4: Monitoring the implementation of the CCMP, reviewing progress, and redirecting efforts where
appropriate.
As the National Estuary Program has evolved, EPA has encouraged management conferences to proceed
with the four phases simultaneously as often as possible. This process emphasizes that there often is not a
clear line of demarcation between development and implementation of a management plan for a
watershed; rather, the two usually build on each other. For example, early results of characterization
(Phase 2) may indicate obvious management actions prior to completion of the CCMP. National Estuary
Program participants are encouraged to take early action where solutions are already possible. In these
cases, early implementation of management recommendations can proceed using funds other than those
available under Section 320. EPA has found this concurrent approach so effective that the Agency has
based selection of new estuaries on their ability to streamline the National Estuary Program phases,
focusing on estuaries where:
Significant problem characterization is complete; A management framework analogous to a
management conference already exists; and Key state and local agencies have already committed
to participate in and support the NEP process.

11. Purpose of Report
The ultimate success of any National Estuary Program management conference can be measured by
implementation of its CCMP. Plan implementation will require a clear understanding among all
participating parties concerning their responsibilities for actions recommended in the CCMP. Because of
the broad scope of environmental problems that will be addressed in the CCMP, it is unlikely that the
responsibility for implementation will fall on a single entity or agency. Rather, the mechanisms and
authorities for implementation will more likely reside with multiple players. This will be especially true
in cases where the estuary and its watershed overlap multiple jurisdictions (i.e., towns, cities, counties,
states, etc.). For this reason, Purpose 5 requires the development of a plan for coordinating the
implementation of the CCMP among federal, state, and local agencies. The goal of this plan is to
institutionalize the recommendations made in the CCMP by identifying the "implementers" and
providing a framework for coordinating their efforts. The implementers may include existing agencies
and organizations or new entities, as recommended in the CCMP.
EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection Division is currently developing guidance to assist National
Estuary Program management conferences in planning for the coordination of CCMP implementation
and meeting the requirements of Purpose 5. In support of that effort, this report was developed as a
reference document on the experiences of several existing organizations established to coordinate or
oversee implementation of specific environmental management plans. Rather than providing a
comprehensive set of recommendations, the report is a first step in identifying key factors that should be
considered when developing institutional arrangements for CCMP implementation based on the
experiences of selected organizations. It should be emphasized that this report is primarily concerned
with organizations responsible for coordinating or overseeing implementation, rather than
implementation per se. However, as will be seen, these coordinating organizations may include
representation by implementing agencies. A case study approach was used to analyze these
organizations, following the methods described below.
Return to the Table of Contents

12. Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Office of Water
Governance Case Studies
Case Studies: Organizational Structures Relevant To Implementation
of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans
2.0 METHODS
In selecting the case study organizations for this report, an attempt was made to reflect the wide range of
variables that define the estuaries included in the National Estuary Program. To accomplish this, the
following selection criteria were used:
q
q
q
q
q
Management Phase: The selected organizations should already be into the implementation phase,
rather than the characterization or plan development phases.
Geographic Area: The range of case study organizations should cover small and large geographic
areas.
State Participation: The range of case study organizations should include single-state participation
as well as multi-state participation.
Mode of Establishment: The range of case study organizations should include those created by
statutory mandate as well as through informal, interorganizational agreements.
Implementation Tools: The range of cas e study organizations should include those that possess
regulatory au thority as well as those that rely on voluntary, nonregulatory types of tools. Please
note that this criteri on did not exclude those organizations that employ a mix of both regulatory
and nonregulatory tools, nor was it intended to imply that the two types of tools were mutually
exclusive.
The objective of using these variables as criteria for selecting the case studies was to allow the collection
of information that was relevant to the greatest number of National Estuary Programs. This mix of
variables also allowed for the selection of organizations that ranged from strictly coordinating entities to

13. those that possessed actual implementation authority. Using the selection criteria as a guide, the following
seven organizations were chosen for analysis during development of this report:
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Buzzards Bay Project: A project office and steering committee charged with overseeing
implementation of the approved Buzzards Bay CCMP in Massachusetts.
Cape Cod Commission: A regional land use regulatory agency for Barnstable County,
Massachusetts, and its incorporated municipalities.
Chesapeake Bay Commission: A legislative Commission serving the three Chesapeake Bay states -Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Selected for its specialized focus on legislative issues, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission plays a somewhat different role in the implementation process than
that of the other six organizations.
Nisqually River Council: A coordinating body charged with developing and implementing a
comprehensive management plan for the three-county Nisqually River watershed in the State of
Washington.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority: A coordinating organization charged with developing a
comprehensive plan for Puget Sound, Washington and overseeing implementation activities in the
12-county region.
Southwest Florida Water Management District: A regulatory entity responsible for managing
water and water-related resources in all or part of 16 Florida counties.
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council: A regional planning council established to advise the fourcounty Tampa Bay, Florida region on physical, economic, and social development issues.
Once the seven case study organizations were selected, the approach for gathering information for
this report included use of a template consisting of standardized categories of information. The
template was used during interviews with key individuals who were either directly affiliated with
each of the case study organizations or had experience with those organizations (Appendix A).
Following the collection and review of written materials and information provided by the
interviewees, drafts of the case studies were developed and distributed to all interviewees for
review, and comments were incorporated. The case study results were then synthesized and key
factors deemed relevant to National Estuary Programs were identified.
The results of the case study analyses are presented in the remainder of this report. Section 3.0 presents
the following factual information for each of the case study organizations:
q
q
q
q
q
Organizational Mandate: What is the overall mission of the organization and where does that
mandate come (e.g., enabling legislation, etc.)?
Geographic Scope: Over what geographic area does the organization have jurisdiction?
Organizational Structure: What are the component parts of the organization, what are their
functions, and how do they relate to one another?
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms: What powers or functions (e.g., permitting, public
education, etc.) does the organization have? What methods does the organization use to ensure that
commitments/recommendations made by entities in the planning document are actually
implemented?
Funding: What is the annual budget of the organization, and from where does this funding come?

14. q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Does the organization have authority to generate funds for the purpose of implementation and, if
so, what are those authorities?
Accountability: To whom is the organization accountable (i.e., who do they report to) and what are
the mechanisms used to meet this requirement (e.g., annual reports, public meetings, etc.)?
Focus of Implementation: What is the organization implementing (i.e., is there a management plan
in place?)?
Measures of Success: What programmatic indicators does the organization use to measure success
relative to its mandate, and how are these indicators measured?
Methods for Coordinating Local Government Implementation Efforts: To what extent, and how,
does the organization coordinate with local governments during implementation?
Methods for Involving the Public: To what extent, and how, does the organization involve the
general public during implementation?
Linkage to State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program: Is there a defined linkage with the
state's CZM program, and if so, what role does CZM play with respect to implementation?
Relevance of (and Methods for Addressing) Federal Consistency: Does the organization have
responsibilities with respect to ensuring consistency between its mandate and federal programs and
projects in the area and, if so, what is that role?
Section 3.0 also presents "lessons learned" that were conveyed by the interviewees concerning their
experiences with the case study organizations. These lessons provide valuable insights from individuals
who are involved in the implementation phase.
Finally, Section 4.0 provides a cross-cutting analysis of the case studies, summarizing for each of the
factors listed above the key institutional factors and lessons learned from each of the case studies and the
significance of these experiences for National Estuary Programs developing plans to oversee CCMP
implementation.
Return to the Table of Contents

15. Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Office of Water
Governance Case Studies
Case Studies: Organizational Structures Relevant To Implementation
of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
3.1 Buzzards Bay Project
3.2 Cape Cod Commission
3.3 Chesapeake Bay Commission
3.4 Nisqually River Council
3.5 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
3.6 Southwest Florida Water Management District
3.7 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Return to the Table of Contents

16. Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Office of Water
Governance Case Studies
Case Studies: Organizational Structures Relevant To Implementation
of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans
3.1 Buzzards Bay Project
Organizational Mandate:
In 1985, the Congress of the United States directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
conduct studies in Buzzards Bay, as well as Narragansett Bay, Long Island Sound, and Puget Sound, to
determine the extent and cause of environmental problems being experienced in these waterbodies. In
response, EPA initiated the Buzzards Bay Project in cooperation with the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs. In 1987, Buzzards Bay was designated an "estuary of national
significance" under Section 320 of the federal Clean Water Act (National Estuary Program/NEP). Under
the National Estuary Program, a management conference was convened for Buzzards Bay, in 1988, to
develop a CCMP, recommending corrective actions necessary to address priority environmental
problems. Since approval of the Buzzards Bay CCMP by the EPA Administrator in 1992, the
responsibility for overseeing CCMP implementation has been assumed by the Buzzards Bay Project
Office in conjunction with an implementation steering committee.
Geographic Scope:
The area addressed by the Buzzards Bay CCMP is located between the western-most part of Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, and the Elizabeth Islands. The Buzzards Bay coastline is over 470 km, with a drainage
basin of approximately 1120 km2. This drainage basin includes all or part of 17 Massachusetts
municipalities and a population of approximately 236,000.

17. Organizational Structure:
The management conference established to develop the Buzzards Bay CCMP ultimately consisted of the
following five committees:
q
q
q
q
q
Policy Committee: Set overall policy of the Buzzards Bay Project and ensured coordinated federal
and Commonwealth effort (EPA Region 1 Administrator, Secretary of Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs).
Management Committee: Directed program activities, including formulation of long-term strategy
and development of annual work plans for CCMP development projects (representatives from
Commonwealth and federal agencies, regional planning commissions, local government, and the
public).
Technical Advisory Committee: Provided a forum for scientific input and advice on issues related
to Buzzards Bay (representatives of academic institutions and Commonwealth and federal
agencies active in research, monitoring, and resource assessment).
Management Plan Advisory Committee: Assisted with the development of the CCMP
(administrators and policy specialists from local, state, and federal agencies and academia). This
committee was dissolved after the first draft CCMP was released in 1990.
Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee: Facilitated regional communication and cooperation among
municipal agencies in the Buzzards Bay watershed (local government officials). In 1987, what
was then known as the Citizen Advisory Committee reorganized into two separate entities: the
Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay (the former has since
become the Buzzards Bay Action Committee(BBAC); the latter is a non-profit citizen's advocacy
group).
As was noted previously, since 1992, day-to-day oversight of CCMP implementation has been assumed
by the Buzzards Bay Project Office. This staff office consists of a Project Manager and approximately 10
staff who are employees of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office or detailees from
various Commonwealth and federal agencies. The Project Office staff include specialists in virtually all
technical issues involved in implementing the Buzzards Bay CCMP.
The Buzzards Bay Project Office receives policy level guidance from a Buzzards Bay Steering
Committee, which represents a scaled-down version of the former Buzzards Bay Management
Committee. Participation on the Steering Committee has been by those entities that have had the
strongest involvement with the Buzzards Bay Project since its inception and now have the greatest
commitment to implementation. As such, representation on the Committee currently includes EPA
Region 1, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (housed within Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs), the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District, the
Buzzards Bay Action Committee (representing the 17 municipalities), and the Coalition for Buzzards
Bay. There is no formal charter for the Steering Committee, and no guidelines exist concerning the longterm makeup of the Committee. There is potential for expanding or modifying Steering Committee
participation in the future, as appropriate, to suit the needs of CCMP implementation.

18. Authority:
The entities represented on the Buzzards Bay Steering Committee possess individual authorities that can
be brought to bear to enhance CCMP implementation. However, the Steering Committee as a whole has
no special authorities, aside from providing periodic direction to the Project Office staff, as well as
approving the annual work plan and budget developed by the Project Office for conducting
implementation activities. The purpose of the Steering Committee is to provide a forum within which
implementation issues can be addressed as they arise, using the combined authorities of the participating
organizations. Individuals interviewed for this case study are satisfied that this model works well for the
Buzzards Bay Project, preferring to capitalize on existing authorities rather than create a new level of
governance. In addition, this model is consistent with the underlying implementation philosophy of the
Buzzards Bay CCMP: that "[t]he future of Buzzards Bay rests with the communities and their ability to
control the quality of their environment." The strong role local government plays in implementing the
Buzzards Bay CCMP is discussed in greater detail later in this case study.
To the extent possible, the Buzzards Bay Project secured written commitments to implement the CCMP
action plans from the identified lead agencies and entities. These commitments include letters from the
Commonwealth's Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Zone Management Office, and
Division of Marine Fisheries; the Region 1 Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the
New England Division, Army Corps of Engineers; and the Southeastern Regional Planning and
Economic Development Council. In addition, the members of the BBAC signed a resolution re-affirming
the commitments made in the Buzzards Bay Action Compact. All of these written commitments were
incorporated as part of the CCMP.
Since securing these commitments, the Buzzards Bay Project Office has maintained responsibility for
incorporating them into the federal and state budget planning process through development and approval
of the annual work plan. In addition, the BBAC attempts to focus continuing attention on municipal
commitments, with varying degrees of success. There continue to be occasional conflicts between the
overall goals of the Buzzards Bay Project and the priorities of the individual cities and towns represented
on the BBAC. These conflicts are not easily resolved, and often challenge the authority of the BBAC to
move beyond its coordinating function.
Funding:
As an entity, the Buzzards Bay Project does not have authority to generate implementation funds. The
primary source of funding for the Buzzards Bay Project has been Section 320 of the Clean Water Act
(National Estuary Program). As with all National Estuary Programs, annual funding for the Buzzards
Bay Project must meet a 3:1 federal/non-federal match ratio. Through 1991, the year the Buzzards Bay
CCMP was completed, federal funds ranged from $200,000 to $607,000 per year and were devoted to
activities necessary to support development of the CCMP. These activities included studies to
characterize the nature and extent of environmental problems, as well as development of appropriate
management actions to address them. Since the CCMP has been approved, the Project has received

19. approximately $200,000 per year in funds under section 320 of the Clean Water Act for activities
necessary to monitor the implementation of the CCMP. These resources are in addition to staff full time
equivalents dedicated to the Project by the participating agencies. Activities eligible for post-CCMP
support include oversight, tracking, and facilitation of implementation commitments, and preparation of
progress reports; evaluation of monitoring data; communication of implementation results to the public;
and modifications to the environmental monitoring program. The federal resources are allocated to EPA
Region 1, which in turn awards cooperative agreements to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Coastal
Zone Management Office), the Coalition for Buzzards Bay, and the Buzzards Bay Action Committee. An
annual work plan is developed by the Project Office, and approved by the Steering Committee. It is
anticipated that federal funding will continue through 1995.
In addition, the Project has been fairly successful in acquiring available federal grant resources, such as
from EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances; Clean Water Act Section 104
(Pollution Research Grants); and Clean Water Act Section 319 (Nonpoint Source Grants). The Project
has also been successful in securing a portion of the Commonwealth's transportation bond that would
generate funds to address stormwater runoff. The Buzzards Bay Action Committee has taken the lead on
several budget initiatives at the state level geared toward developing implementation funds, including a
proposed betterment bill tied to the Commonwealth's sanitary waste code, and a proposed boat excise
tax.
Accountability:
Members of the Buzzards Bay Steering Committee are primarily accountable to the individual entities
and agencies that they represent. Because Committee participation transcends federal, Commonwealth,
local government, and public lines, there is no single reporting line for the Committee as a whole. The
Project Office is accountable to the Steering Committee, but individual staff also maintain accountability
to their home agencies. The potential for conflict that this dual accountability might pose has been
avoided through a strong commitment by the individual agencies that Buzzards Bay priorities come first,
particularly for the Project Office staff. Any issues concerning these priorities are resolved during
development and approval of the annual work plan.
Focus of Implementation:
The CCMP being implemented by the Buzzards Bay Project is the product of six years of technical
studies aimed at determining the nature and extent of environmental problems in Buzzards Bay, as well
as the causes of those problems. In addition, working through the management conference framework
described previously, the Project identified possible solutions to those problems. Therefore, the CCMP
serves as a blueprint of corrective actions in the Bay.
The Buzzards Bay CCMP identifies three priority problems:
q
Health risks from pathogens associated with the improper treatment or disposal of human wastes,

20. q
q
and the subsequent closure of shellfish beds;
Excessive nutrient inputs to the Bay, and their potential for causing water quality degradation and
loss of habitat; and
Contamination of fish, shellfish, and lobsters by toxic substances such as trace metals,
hydrocarbons, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
To address these problems, the CCMP presents action plans that focus on 11 issue areas: managing
nitrogen-sensitive embayments, protecting and enhancing shellfish resources, controlling stormwater
runoff, managing sanitary wastes from boats, managing on-site septic systems, preventing oil pollution,
protecting wetlands and coastal habitat, planning for a shifting shoreline, managing sewage treatment
facilities, reducing toxic pollution, and managing dredging and dredged material disposal.
In addition, the CCMP provides recommendations to address unique problems being experienced in the
vicinity of the City of New Bedford (e.g., Superfund site, New Bedford Wastewater Treatment Plant,
combined sewer overflows), as well as options for managing land use in the Buzzards Bay watershed.
Each action plan defines the specific problem to be addressed; provides background information on that
problem; identifies major issues or assumptions associated with the action plan; establishes a goal and
objectives to be achieved; identifies specific actions that will be taken to achieve the goals and
objectives, as well as the agencies responsible for those commitments; and recommends other actions
that should be taken to achieve the goals and objectives. Cost estimates for implementing several of the
action plans, along with funding options, are included in a second volume to the CCMP. A monitoring
plan also accompanies the CCMP as a third volume.
Measures of Success:
For the past six years, the Coalition for Buzzards Bay (Coalition) has tracked progress toward
improvement in the quality of Buzzards Bay through an Environmental Report Card process, essentially
"grading" the Buzzards Bay watershed towns on their efforts. This process has included use of a
questionnaire that is filled out by the towns, followed by interviews by the Coalition, and synthesis of the
compiled information. In the past, grades were developed for each of the relevant boards within each
town (e.g., Planning Board, Board of Health, Conservation Commission, etc.). The results of the report
cards are made public at an annual press conference.
Beginning with the 1993 process (initiated in January 1994), the report cards will be developed to more
closely track implementation of the CCMP by organizing the questionnaire according to the 11 action
plans. In addition, a single grade will be issued to each town, rather than board-specific grades. Three
different questionnaires will be used to make the process more relevant to Coastal, Inland, and New
Bedford issues. Example questions include:
Controlling Stormwater Runoff

21. What actions has the town taken through preventative maintenance programs such as cleaning of catch
basins to reduce the impacts of stormwater pollution?
Managing On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems
Do the town's septic system regulations establish a setback distance between septic systems and surface
waters and wetlands or require adjustments to the system design and application rate to ensure viral
removal in environmentally sensitive areas?
Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources
Have any acres of shellfish beds been closed this year due to pollution? Have any shellfish beds been
opened this year due to pollution mitigation efforts?
As might be expected, reactions to the Environmental Report Cards are mixed. Those towns that receive
good grades generally react favorably to the process, while those that receive bad grades often react
negatively. There appears to be a general sense that, because the annual grades are publicized broadly,
the process has instilled a certain degree of competition among the towns to achieve environmental
improvement. The report cards have also helped to raise the awareness of the general public concerning
CCMP implementation.
Methods for Coordinating Local Government Implementation Efforts:
As was noted previously, implementation of the Buzzards Bay CCMP relies heavily on local
governments in the watershed. This critical role of local governments stems from the legislated tradition
of "home rule" in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which places them in the best position to address
the nonpoint sources of pollution that are the causes of many of the problems in the watershed. In 1987,
what was then known as the Citizen Advisory Committee of the Buzzards Bay Project reorganized into
two separate entities: the Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay. The
Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives of 12 of the Buzzards Bay watershed
communities, was formed in recognition of the special role of local governments in the Buzzards Bay
watershed, as well as the need to coordinate the activities of these communities in protecting the
resource.
In 1990, the Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee became the Buzzards Bay Action Committee to
emphasize the lead role that these communities would play during CCMP implementation, and an
Executive Director was hired to coordinate the day-to-day activities of the Buzzards Bay Action
Committee. One of the first achievements of the Buzzards Bay Action Committee was the signing of the
Buzzards Bay Action Compact by the 12 member communities. In signing the Compact, these
communities agreed to review and update town by-laws and regulations to voluntarily facilitate
implementation of the action plans included in the CCMP. Formation of the Buzzards Bay Action
Committee and signing of the Compact is viewed as a major accomplishment in an area with such a

22. strong tradition of home rule.
Under Articles of Organization filed with the Commonwealth, the Buzzards Bay Action Committee was
incorporated in 1991. Under these Articles, the purpose of the Buzzards Bay Action Committee is to
"facilitate regional communication and cooperation among municipal, state, and federal agencies
concerned with the management of Buzzards Bay and its watershed by discussing water quality concerns
in their communities." In addition, the Buzzards Bay Action Committee is charged with the following:
Taking advantage of technical assistance provided to local boards and commissions by the
Buzzards Bay Project;
Assisting Buzzards Bay communities in identifying public and private funds for pollution control
projects;
Serving as an advocate for continued funding for water quality projects in Buzzards Bay; and
Providing a coordinating mechanism among the Buzzards Bay communities.
Each of the 17 cities and towns within the Buzzards Bay watershed may designate a member to the
Buzzards Bay Action Committee. In addition, the executive boards of the Southeast Regional Planning
and Economic Development District, the Coalition for Buzzards Bay, and the Cape Cod Commission
each may also designate a member to the BBAC. The Buzzards Bay Action Committee is governed by a
Board of Directors selected by the members, with a Chairman presiding over the Board. In addition, the
officers of the Committee include a President, Executive Vice President, Treasurer, and Clerk, and are
elected annually.
The Buzzards Bay Action Committee is viewed as a success in establishing a coordination mechanism
among the Buzzards Bay cities and towns. For example, a mutual aid pact for oil spill response has been
agreed to by the member communities of the Buzzards Bay Action Committee. The pact establishes a
Buzzards Bay Regional Response Team, as well as standard operating procedures by which a
municipality can request assistance from a neighboring municipality to address an oil spill. The pact
addresses procedures for activating the Team, roles of Team members, and training requirements.
There has been some concern expressed regarding the designation of representatives to the Buzzards Bay
Action Committee. Specifically, because the governance of a single town in Massachusetts often resides
with multiple boards and commissions, it can be difficult to ensure the ability of a single representative to
speak for that town. Therefore, this role requires that much time be allotted to inter-board
communications, often adding to an already burdensome workload at the local level. The establishment
of smaller committees of the Buzzards Bay Action Committee (e.g., representatives of Boards of Health)
has been suggested as a possible means to address this problem. Turn-over within local boards and
commissions also creates a need for continuing education concerning the goals and objectives of both the
Buzzards Bay Action Committee and the Buzzards Bay Project. To address this need, the Buzzards Bay

23. Action Committee provides an annual report to all member cities and towns, and the Executive Director
attempts to attend Boards of Selectmen meetings on a monthly basis to solicit input. Locating sources of
implementation funds is cited as a continuing challenge for the Buzzards Bay Action Committee.
Methods for Involving the Public:
Prior to completion of the CCMP, public outreach efforts on behalf of the Buzzards Bay Project
originated from three sources: the Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies (under contract with the
Buzzards Bay Project), the Citizen's Advisory Committee, and the Buzzards Bay Project Office. These
activities included production and distribution of quarterly newsletters (by the Lloyd Center prior to
1991, by the Project Office after 1991), conducting public events and workshops, and developing a
Buzzards Bay school curriculum. In 1987, the Coalition for Buzzards Bay was established as an
independent nonprofit, tax-exempt organization to play a Bay-wide advocacy role on behalf of the
public.
Since completion of the CCMP, the Coalition for Buzzards Bay has continued to play an advocacy role
in the Bay area. In addition to ongoing public education activities, the Coalition monitors local boards
and commissions concerning Buzzards Bay restoration and protection efforts, attending board meetings
and developing the annual Buzzards Bay Environmental Report Cards that were previously cited. The
Coalition produces and distributes a regular newsletter on the Bay, which is independent of the Buzzards
Bay Project Office.
Linkage to State Coastal Zone Management Program:
Since its inception, the Buzzards Bay Project has been administered through the Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Office, creating a strong link between the goals of the Project and those of the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. A primary implementation mechanism
recommended in the CCMP was incorporation of its action plans into the Commonwealth's Coastal Zone
Management Plan. New Coastal Zone Management Plan regulatory policies were to be drafted that were
specific to Buzzards Bay, along with "nonenforceable" policies. The CCMP also established the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management review process as the preferred mechanism for reviewing
federal actions for consistency with the CCMP.
The process of incorporating the CCMP into the Coastal Zone Management Plan has progressed slowly,
with most of the emphasis to date for CCMP implementation focused at the municipal level. One reason
cited for the lack of progress in this area has been the change in personnel within the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Program Office since the CCMP was completed. However, "institutionalizing" the CCMP
as part of the Coastal Zone Management Plan is still viewed as an important mechanism for ensuring that
the goals of the Buzzards Bay Project live on, creating a formal link between state and local
commitments to take action in Buzzards Bay.
Relevance of (and Methods for Addressing) Federal Consistency:

24. As was previously noted, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management review process provides
the mechanism for reviewing federal actions for consistency with the CCMP. The regional
coordinator for this review is located in the Buzzards Bay Project Office in Marion,
Massachusetts, ensuring ready access.
Lessons Learned:
All parties interviewed for this case study believe that the organizational model being used to implement
the Buzzards Bay CCMP works well for that situation. Three years after approval of the CCMP, there
continues to be strong sentiment for working within existing authorities and against creating another
layer of government.
Based on the Buzzards Bay Project experience, interviewees suggested that the following issues be
considered when developing organizational strategies:
1. Representation within the organizational structure
The organizational structure should focus on those entities that will play a role in implementation.
In addition, entities participating within the organizational structure should assign representatives
with authority to speak for that entity. As has been noted in this case study, a clear understanding
of the organizational structures of the participating entities (e.g., multiple boards and commissions
for a single town) can help determine the best mechanism for ensuring equitable representation.
2. Continuing process of re-education
Over the long term, new individuals will more than likely become active in the organizational
structure, either as other individuals move on or as the agendas of the participating entities evolve.
For this reason, some consideration should be given to bringing these new individuals "up to
speed" in a way that avoids losing momentum.
3. Competition for the public's attention
Given the current economic climate in the United States, it should not be assumed that CCMP
implementation will be unanimously embraced. Decisions concerning the expenditure of public
resources will always be considered in terms of competing social needs. Environmental protection
is only one of those needs. Therefore, any organizational structure should strive to include
individuals who can influence public opinion in support of the goals of implementation.
4. Conflicts with the agendas of individual entities
There currently is no centralized authority within the Buzzards Bay Project for mandating the

25. implementation of commitments made in the CCMP. A consensus approach has been used to date
and, for the most part, has worked. However, there are times when the participating entities
respond to their individual priorities rather than to those of the Project. In these cases, the Project
has no real way of impacting those priorities if the consensus approach does not work. However,
suggestions concerning the investment of stronger authority in a single entity to influence the
actions of others raise obvious concerns over potential conflicts with existing authorities (e.g.,
local governments). No solution to this dilemma has been identified by the Buzzards Bay Project
but, as has been stated, participants remain committed to working through existing authorities.
5. State and federal agencies as partners
Even in a program that is as dependent on local authorities as the Buzzards Bay Project,
interviewees stressed the need to ensure that relevant state and federal agencies remain as partners
during the implementation process. Financial resources that may be available from these levels, as
well as their ability to play a coordination role from a watershed perspective, are seen as key
elements for successful implementation.
6. Local governments as part of a larger system
Interviewees suggested that the Buzzards Bay Project has demonstrated that it is possible to
motivate what are, at times, disparate local interests toward a common goal. Achieving agreement
among the 17 Buzzards Bay communities to coordinate their efforts in a state with such a strong
home rule tradition is seen as a major success of the Project, and one that suggests that similar
coordination should be possible elsewhere.
Return to the Table of Contents

26. Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Office of Water
Governance Case Studies
Case Studies: Organizational Structures Relevant To Implementation
of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans
3.2 Cape Cod Commission
Organizational Mandate:
The Cape Cod Commission is a regional commission empowered by the Cape Cod Commission Act
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Commission was formally approved as the
regional land use regulatory agency for Barnstable County and its incorporated municipalities in 1990.
Prior to that time, it had operated as a regional planning and advisory agency.
The Commission is charged with three responsibilities: 1) regulatory control of Developments of
Regional Impact and Districts of Critical Planning Concern; 2) comprehensive planning services for the
county and its political subdivisions (i.e., development of a Regional Policy Plan); and 3) technical
services in support of the regulatory and comprehensive planning programs.
The Cape Cod Commission is primarily a regional planning commission with powers vested in it by the
Commonwealth and by the municipalities in its one county service area. Due to Cape Cod's proximity to
the Atlantic Ocean and its dependence on a sole source aquifer for drinking water supplies, the
Commission maintains an active and sophisticated water resources management program that has defined
strong pollution control policies and regulations through a system of performance zoning aimed at the
protection of sensitive areas such as wellheads, recharge zones, and potential water supply source areas.
These environmental priorities were important factors in convincing voters and legislators to give the
Commission authority to review and approve local plans and permits.

27. Geographic Scope:
The Cape Cod Commission has jurisdiction over land uses within Barnstable County which includes the
entire Cape Cod area. The coastline is 117 km in length and the area covers 1020 km2. Barnstable
County has a population of 186,605 and consists of the following 15 coastal towns: Provincetown, Truro,
Wellfleet, Eastham, Orleans, Chatham, Brewster, Harwich, Dennis, Yarmouth, Barnstable, Sandwich,
Mashpee, Falmouth, and Bourne.
Organizational Structure:
The Cape Cod Commission is a county agency with jurisdiction over the entire watershed. The
Commission is an example of using special authority commissions and boards with considerable
authority to manage resources with limited political boundaries.
The Cape Cod Commission consists of a 19 member board and agency staff. The members of the board
are appointed as follows:
Boards of Selectmen (in Barnstable, the Town Manager) in each of the 15 Cape towns select one
Cape Cod Commissioner to represent their town.
The Board of County Commissioners selects three Cape Cod Commissioners. One of these must
be a county commissioner, one a Native American, and one a minority member.
The Governor of Massachusetts appoints one minority member.
Each Commissioner has one vote, except for the Governor's appointee who may only vote in case of a
tie. Members serve for three years, except that the Board of County Commissioners chooses its
representatives annually and the Governor's appointee has a term coterminous with the Governor. The
appointed Commissioners are volunteers that donate large amounts of personal time to the efforts of the
Commission.
The Commissioners are the decision and policy makers of the Cape Cod Commission charged with three
main areas of responsibility: 1) regulatory, 2) planning/policy, and 3) administrative/executive. The
commissioners have the regulatory authority for all land use projects and function as a special purpose
county planning board. The commission uses subcommittees to review regulatory projects, including an
extensive process for public input. The Commissioners also function as the board of directors for the
Commission in dealing with budget and personnel issues and are very involved in the "nuts and bolts"
functioning of the Commission.
An increasingly important role of the Commissioners is that of ambassadors of the Commission to the
towns. This role provides information to, and a mechanism for acquiring feedback from, the towns. In

28. fulfilling this role, the Commissioners ensure that what is being reported about the Commission is
accurate. However, it should be noted that the Commissioners are appointed, not elected, and are not
unanimously comfortable in assuming a more public role or becoming advocates of the Cape Cod
Commission.
The Commissioners are supported by a Cape Cod Commission staff office (Figure 1) which provides
extensive guidance and technical advice to the Commissioners in support of their decision making. The
staff are well equipped to provide analytical support and technical guidance to Commissioners during the
decision-making process. Many of the staff from the agency preceding the Cape Cod Commission
remained when the current Commission was formed, thus maintaining long standing relationships and a
deep institutional structure. Since that time, the Commission has added staff positions, including several
new technical positions.
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms:
The Cape Cod Commission Act was passed in 1990 in response to widespread and growing concern
about the preservation of Cape Cod's unique and fragile environment. It F1 created the Cape Cod
Commission and established standards and techniques for the Commission to follow in carrying out its
mission. The Act prescribed the following mechanisms for achieving the Commission's planning and
regulatory goals:
Preparation of a Regional Policy Plan to guide development throughout the County. This plan
emphasizes goals and objectives, as well as minimum performance standards.
Development by Cape towns of Local Comprehensive Plans.
Identification and regulation of developments which have an impact that extends beyond the
boundaries of a single town as Developments of Regional Impact.
The designation of Districts of Critical Planning Concern for special protection of significant
natural and cultural resources.
The Commission has the authority to regulate Districts of Critical Planning Concern. Areas may be
nominated by the Commission, the county commissioners or the assembly of delegates, or a board of
selectman, historic commission, planning board, board of health, or conservation commission of any
municipality for any area within the municipal boundaries which possess a major public capital facility,
or significant coastal, natural, historic, economic, cultural, archeological, architectural or recreational
resource. They may also be areas with sensitive ecological conditions, rendering them unsuitable for
development. The voting members of the Commission have the power to accept or reject consideration of
application to designate Districts of Critical Planning Concern, as well as to approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove permit applications falling within these areas. It should be noted that the
Districts of Critical Planning Concern process is very complicated, and that there have been no

29. applications to date.
The Commission's designation of a District of Critical Planning Concern must be approved by the
County, after which a limited moratorium may be imposed on development until the municipality in
which the District is located adopts regulations approved by the Commission to protect significant
resources. Thereafter, development is reviewed by the municipality pursuant to those regulations.
The Commission is authorized to regulate Developments of Regional Impact according to standards
established in the Regional Policy Plan. The Commission has direct permit authority over Developments
of Regional Impacts including the demolition or substantial alteration of historic structures; bridges and
roads that provide access to the coast; subdivisions exceeding 50 acres; and developments with more
than 30 residential or 10 commercial units.
The Regional Policy Plan is a powerful regulatory document. The Commission's regulatory program uses
the Plan as a guide and all projects must be consistent with it. Local Comprehensive Plans are small scale
versions of the Regional Policy Plan and will be an important mechanism through which the Regional
Policy Plan is implemented. Every project that the CCC reviews is closely evaluated to ensure that it
meets the standards set forth in the Regional Policy Plan.
Funding:
The Cape Cod Commission may generate its own funds through permitting fees and public and private
grants, and may raise up to $2 million annually through county taxes (in the form of property taxes)
levied by the Board of County Commissioners, with approval by the County.
Funds are also provided through state and federal grants. Over the years, EPA has provided funding to
the Commission for projects authorized under Sections 205 (Water Quality Management Grants, 604
(State Revolving Fund), and 319 (Nonpoint Source Grants) of the Clean Water Act. The Cape Cod
Commission also raises funds by collecting fees for projects that are reviewed by the Commission.
The County must approve the Cape Cod Commission's budget annually. All expenditures must be
supported by appropriated revenues in the form of taxes, fees, and grants. These appropriations for fiscal
year 1991 through fiscal year 1994 were as follows:
FY91: $1,963,172
FY92: $2,464,135
FY93: $2,329,544
FY94: $2,562,863

30. Accountability:
The Cape Cod Commission is accountable to the Massachusetts State Legislature and to Barnstable
County. All Commission finances are handled at the county level and are subject to detailed financial
accounting and audits. There is no sunset provision to the Cape Cod Commission Act, so in theory, the
Commission could continue into perpetuity. The Commission continues to operate under the original
enabling legislation without amendment.
Focus of Implementation:
The Commission's focus for implementation has been on issues of "regional urgency." The Cape Cod
Commission has focused much attention on groundwater protection, primarily due to the need to protect
the area's sole source aquifer. Due to an increasing influx of people to the Cape Cod region, growth
management is becoming a top priority (i.e., density planning, transportation infrastructure, traffic
issues). However, the focus on groundwater protection continues due to the demands placed on water
supplies by the increasing growth pressure.
Since March 27, 1990, when the Commission Act received formal approval, the Commission has been
working to refine the process by which the larger development projects that affect the region are given
careful and thorough review. Known as Developments of Regional Impact, there are projects which
exceed specified thresholds of size and which have a demonstrable effect on important regional attributes
of Cape Cod. In general, only larger projects come under Commission review.
Districts of Critical Planning Concern are intended to allow increased scrutiny and protection for portions
of Cape Cod that need special attention. These Districts can be designated to protect anything from water
quality to economic resources, and can establish rules which encourage appropriate development. The
Act spells out factors which warrant nomination as Districts of Critical Planning Concern. Including
presence of a major public capital facility, or significant natural, coastal, historic, economic, cultural,
archaeological, architectural, or recreational resources. The Act also allows the nomination of areas with
sensitive ecological conditions which make them unsuitable for development. Examples in the
Commission's guidelines include districts designed to protect or encourage water resources, aquaculture,
agriculture, economic development, downtown revitalization, and architecture, to name only a few of the
possibilities.
The Regional Policy Plan developed by the Commission was adopted June 20, 1991. The Plan is both a
planning and regulatory document and is designed to be the blueprint to which Commission members
can refer as they make crucial decisions about Developments of Regional Impacts and Districts of
Critical Planning Concerns now and in the future. The plan specifies the most important values of life on
Cape Cod--its environment, economy, and historic heritage, among others--and suggests how to protect
them.
The Regional Policy Plan establishes regional goals and performance standards with respect to land use

31. and growth management, public access, coastal erosion, coastal water quality, agricultural preservation,
sewage treatment, wetlands, wildlife and plant habitat, transportation, solid and hazardous waste
management, affordable housing, energy conservation, open space and recreation, economic
development, and historic preservation. Local Comprehensive Plans must be reviewed by the
Commission and found to be consistent with the Regional Policy Plan. Although there is no requirement
that municipalities prepare or adopt Local Comprehensive Plans, towns that have plans certified by the
Commission may impose impact fees, whereby developers are charged directly for the costs of necessary
infrastructure. This provides a significant incentive to the towns. The Commission also encourages state
agency action to be consistent with the Regional Policy Plan.
Of special note is the groundwater component of the Regional Policy Plan. It is exhaustive in the land
use planning system it uses to protect groundwater. Performance standards are established for
development activities in the following six special use zones:
q
q
q
q
q
q
Wellhead Protection Areas
Freshwater Recharge Areas
Marine Water Recharge Areas
Impaired Areas
Water Quality Improvement Areas
Potential Public Water Supply Areas
Measures of Success:
Mechanisms for measuring success of the Cape Cod Commission include the use of performance
standards set forth in the Regional Policy Plan. For example, to maintain and improve water quality
relative to shellfishing and swimming, the Plan requires that stormwater management systems be
designed to accommodate a one foot rise in relative sea level. The Commission also uses performance
indicators as part of the Barnstable County budget process. However, the qualitative aspects of the
programs make quantification difficult. For example, while it is easy to record numbers of projects
reviewed, this type of indicator does not take into account the quality of technical expertise and
comprehensive planning that the Commission provides.
The Commission attempts to subjectively determine how well the organization is meeting the goals set
forth in the Regional Policy Plan. While it is difficult to monitor overall success, continual assessments
of projects and policies are undertaken. In addition, indicators such as grants received and acres of open
space preserved are recorded and used as a measure of success.
Methods for Coordinating Local Government Implementation Efforts:
In parallel with the passage of the Cape Cod Commission Act, Barnstable County underwent an unusual
reorganization which resulted in a new county charter. This charter was the first new county charter to be
approved in Massachusetts in over 300 years. Massachusetts county government has not typically been a

32. strong institution. However, in the Cape Cod area there was, and is, tremendous support for the county
reorganization and for the development of a regional institution. The county charter and the Cape Cod
Commission Act were developed simultaneously resulting in strong integration of the Cape Cod
Commission into county government. In addition, the Commission has an agreement with the
Commonwealth's Executive Office of Environmental Affairs to strive for a more unified regulatory
process.
Since the Cape Cod Commission is an integral part of Barnstable County government, major policy
mechanisms, such as the Regional Policy Plan, require enactment as an ordinance by the Assembly of
Delegates. The Commission is subject to the normal budgetary process of the County government and
appointments to the staff are made by the Board of County Commissioners.
While the Cape Cod Commission has authority to make decisions at the regional level, local support is
essential to successful implementation. In the past, the Commission has not coordinated enough with
local officials and has, in some cases, alienated local boards who felt that their input and regulatory
processes were being disregarded. Currently, the Commission has an improving relationship with local
communities.
As was noted previously the Commission implements the Regional Policy Plan, in part, through Local
Comprehensive Plans. Currently, all towns are involved in a voluntary effort to develop their plans, with
technical and financial support being provided by the Commission. Once the towns develop these plans,
the Commission must review them for consistency with the Regional Policy Plan.
The Commission's review of projects precedes that of towns. Towns can propose changes to projects or
deny projects that the Commission has approved; however, towns can not approve projects that the
Commission has already refused. The Commission actively encourages towns to participate in their
regional reviews and is attempting to improve and streamline the review process. A significant aspect of
this process consists of public hearings in which local governments are provided opportunities to
participate.
Conflicts with local governments still arise over specific projects. The perception that the Commission is
undermining local authority continues to be an issue, and the Commission is continuing to pursue efforts
to ensure a stable and positive relationship with local officials and entities.
Methods for Involving the Public:
The Cape Cod Commission Act originated from a grassroots initiative and established a "culture of going
to the people." The Commission has made continuing public involvement an important component
through public hearings and meetings. The regulatory program implemented by the Commission requires
formal notices and public hearings. Grassroots involvement comes through participation by each of the
municipalities in the voting decisions of the Commission.

33. The Commission's Publications Department produces a periodic publication summarizing decisions
made by the Commission and providing notice of upcoming hearings. The twice-monthly REPORTER
helps explain the workings of the Commission and contains other information about the agency's
activities, both planning and regulatory. It is mailed to more than 750 subscribers, including local
officials, citizens, and professionals. The Department also serves as a liaison with the local media, and
has contributed to the development of public education strategies.
The Commission recognizes the need to increase public awareness, and one of its current goals is to
improve use of the media, as well as develop a comprehensive public affairs program. Because the
Commission is a political agency, continued positive support from its constituency is essential to
progress.
Linkage to State Coastal Zone Management Program:
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program has always had a close working relationship with
the Commission. All of the Cape Cod region under the jurisdiction of the Commission is within the
coastal zone. Thus, in addition to review by the Commission, major projects proposed for the Cape Cod
region are also reviewed by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. The Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management program has an active presence in the county, with its regional office located
at the Cape Cod Commission. A Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program Regional
Coordinator provides technical assistance on coastal management issues to the Commission and the
communities of Barnstable County in a number of ways. Coastal erosion, hazards, and harbor planning
received priority attention during 1993, and these will continue to be a critical focus in the future.
Technical assistance is provided on projects reviewed by local, state, and county officials.
Many of the efforts of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program Regional Coordinator are
performed in conjunction with the Cape Cod Commission's Marine Resources Specialist. As a team
addressing coastal and marine management issues, technical expertise is provided to Commission staff
and the communities on development of the coastal resources element of Local Comprehensive Plans.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program considers this a vital component of the regional
program, where the community is developing and implementing coastal management and harbor
planning initiatives at the local level.
In the future, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program is planning to incorporate the
Commission's Regional Policy Plan into its coastal zone management program. When this is
accomplished, it is anticipated that the Plan will be designated as a "special area management plan"
providing additional implementation authority through enforceable policies of the coastal zone
management program.
Relevance of (and Methods for Addressing) Federal Consistency:
All of Cape Cod is within the designated coastal zone, and the entire area is potentially subject to federal

34. review. As has been noted, the key provisions in the Regional Policy Plan have been found to be
consistent with federal guidelines, and it is anticipated that the plan will be formally adopted into the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program in the future.
Lessons Learned:
The Cape Cod region has always been recognized as an extremely unique area with a strong sense of
regionalism, a sole-source aquifer, peninsula characteristics, and a similar economic structure within the
towns in the area. These unique attributes were a strong motivation for the development and eventual
passage of the Cape Cod Commission Act. The passage of the Act, and the resultant establishment of the
Cape Cod Commission, was a long and arduous process. The Commission has been an extremely
effective planning and regulatory agency due, in large part, to the fact that the Massachusetts State
Legislature provided substantial authority to the Commission.
1. Public education and involvement
One of the more notable aspects of the Cape Cod Commission's overall program is the strong interaction
and consultation with stakeholders within the community. Early on, the Commission recognized the
enormous benefit of keeping the lines of communication open, resulting in a Regional Policy Plan that
reflects the concerns of the people of Cape Cod. However, while there was an effort to involve the
communities on certain levels, the Commission was slow to develop an understanding of the importance
of public affairs and outreach. The Commission underestimated the need for public relations, considering
it an inappropriate role for a government agency. The realization that there was a negative public
perception of the Commission and the fact that misunderstandings about its mission existed at the public
level, have stimulated the Commission to be more proactive in fostering and maintaining public interest
and trust. Therefore, establishment of a comprehensive public affairs program is a strong
recommendation to any planning and regulatory entity.
2. Local government involvement
Maintaining the autonomy of local governments is always a challenge. The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts has a strong tradition of "home rule," and the fact that local towns gave up any control is
extremely unusual and makes the Commission very unique. A positive result of the Commission's
institutional structure is that, although the towns initially delegate some of their authority to the
Commission, once they develop an approved local comprehensive plan, their authority is extended and
they gain additional powers. However, the loss of local autonomy continues to arise as an issue,
particularly over the regulation of specific projects.
3. Regulatory versus technical functions
Over the past four years, there has been much emphasis on the regulatory function of the Cape Cod
Commission, while its technical function has received much less attention. The Commission is actively

35. working toward increased public knowledge about the planning and technical expertise that the
Commission staff bring to the region. These planning and technical functions actually comprise twothirds of the Commission's programs and have been invaluable to the small towns within the region.
4. Flexible structure
The Cape Cod Commission has been designed to be flexible, allowing for the evolution of policies and
programs as information is developed. The Cape Cod Commission's structure is designed to
accommodate changing priorities. As a testament to its institutional structure and adaptability, the agency
has been in existence for four years without a legislative amendment.
Establishment of the Commission allowed the people of Cape Cod to determine what they wanted Cape
Cod to be like in the future. Then, the Cape Cod Commission developed the regulatory structure to make
this vision real.
Return to the Table of Contents
Revised December 15, 1995

36. Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Office of Water
Governance Case Studies
Case Studies: Organizational Structures Relevant To Implementation
of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans
3.3 Chesapeake Bay Commission
Organizational Mandate:
A bi-state Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, was created in 1980 by the General
Assemblies of the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia in recognition of the states'
shared concerns and responsibilities for the wise utilization, conservation, and management of
Chesapeake Bay resources. The legislation was amended by mutual consent in 1985 to include the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a full member of the Commission. See Attachment 1 to this case
study for the Preamble to the Tri-State Agreement creating the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
The primary purpose of the Commission is to assist the legislatures of the three states in responding to
problems of Baywide concern and to encourage cooperative, coordinated planning and action among the
executive agencies of the three states.
There are several nonessential differences in legislative language among the authorizing statutes of the
three states. Precise wording can be found in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Natural Resources
Article, Section 8-302; the Code of Virginia, Title 62.1, Chapter 5.2, Sections 62.1-69.5 through 62.169.20, and Laws of Pennsylvania, Act 25 of 1985, 32 P.S. Section 820.11.
Geographic Scope:

37. The Chesapeake Bay is widely accepted as the largest estuary in the country, with a total drainage area of
approximately 180,000 km2. The Commission assists the legislatures of Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania in responding to problems of the Chesapeake Bay.
Organizational Structure: The Chesapeake Bay Commission was an outgrowth of the 1980 findings
and recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory Commission. The Legislative
Advisory Commission was charged by the Maryland and Virginia State Legislatures with evaluating
existing and potential management institutions for the Chesapeake Bay and reporting recommendations
to the 1980 sessions of the legislatures. Although there was awareness that existing state and federal
programs cumulatively exercised broad management powers over the Chesapeake Bay region, some
problems had been identified with integrating appropriate solutions into this existing institutional
structure.
The Advisory Commission held a series of eight meetings and workshops at locations in Virginia and
Maryland and asked for private individuals and state representatives to provide background information
and supporting documents to identify areas of concern related to the management of the Chesapeake Bay.
In general, the management problems identified through this process were associated with the failure of
the states to adequately coordinate the use of existing controls over Bay resources.
The Advisory Commission reviewed seven general types of alternative management institutions which
could conceivably be adapted for use in improving and coordinating Bay management activities in the
two states. Characteristics of each option were presented in detail in a report entitled "Description of
Available Institutional Alternatives for Improved Chesapeake Bay Management". The alternatives
considered were: reliance upon existing government agencies, with no new entity being created; a bistate commission without federal participation; a federal-interstate commission; a commission created
under Title II of the Water Resources Planning Act of l965; a commission or agency created pursuant to
Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972; an interstate planning agency created under
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act); and a federal regional
management authority.
After a careful evaluation of alternatives, the Advisory Commission determined that improved
coordination between the states in Chesapeake Bay management would best be served by the creation of
a bi-state Commission answering directly to the General Assemblies of the two states. The Advisory
Commission recognized the central role of executive branch agencies in achieving a greater degree of
interstate cooperation, but also recognized that disparities in management practices across state lines
were often based upon different legislative policies under existing state laws that could not be reconciled
by executive attention. The bi-state Commission, as conceived, would be an improvement, not an
enlargement of government. The Commission would not include any direct federal participation, nor
would it have any assigned regulatory or management powers. The Commission would advise the two
legislatures on proposed legislation affecting the use of the Bay resources and serve to focus legislative
attention on problems identified by the executive agencies.

38. The Chesapeake Bay Commission membership consists of seven representatives from each of the three
states. Each state's delegation includes two Senators, three Delegates or Representatives, the Governor or
his designee, and a citizen representative. The Commission has a small professional staff of four, with
offices in Annapolis, Richmond, and Harrisburg.
Legislators serving as members of the Commission serve terms coterminous with their current terms of
office. The nonlegislative members serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing authorities for a
term of not more than four years. Nonlegislative members may be reappointed at the end of the four year
term. Commission members serve without compensation but may be reimbursed by the Commission for
necessary expenses incurred in and incident to the performance of their duties.
Chesapeake Bay Commission meetings are held at least once each quarter. In order to constitute a
quorum for the transaction of any business, at least eleven Commission members, including at least three
members from each state, must be present. Approval of proposed actions requires the majority vote of the
Commission members present.
The Commission members serve as the governing body of the Commission and exercise and discharge
all powers, functions, and responsibilities assigned to the Commission. They adopt suitable bylaws. A
Chairman and two vice Chairmen, chosen by respective delegations, rotate annually among the signatory
states and may at no time be held by members from the same states. The Commission may not delegate
its power to make recommendations to the respective legislatures, to issue reports, or to adopt an annual
expense budget.
The Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission is a member of the Executive Council of the
Chesapeake Bay Program, the highest decision making body of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Members
of the Executive Council also include the Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, the Mayor
of the District of Columbia, and the Administrator of EPA representing the federal government. The
Executive Director of the Commission sits on the Chesapeake Bay Program Principal's Staff Committee,
the Implementation Committee, and the Budget Steering Committee to ensure that federal funds are
spent in a cost effective manner and that state implementation grant funds remain committed to the
installation and improvement of best management practices. In 1993, Chesapeake Bay Commission staff
were also participants on the Living Resources, Toxics, Fish Passage, Communications, and Population
Growth and Development subcommittees.
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms:
The purpose of the Chesapeake Bay Commission is to assist the legislatures of Maryland, Pennsylvania,
and Virginia in evaluating and responding to problems of mutual concern relating to the Chesapeake
Bay; to promote intergovernmental cooperation; to encourage cooperative, coordinated resource planning
and action by the signatories and their agencies; to provide, where appropriate, through recommendations
to the respective legislatures, uniformity of legislative application; to preserve and enhance the functions,
powers, and duties of existing offices and agencies of government; and to recommend improvements in

39. the existing management system for the benefit of the present and future inhabitants of the Chesapeake
Bay region.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission has the following authorities:
Collect, compile, analyze, interpret, coordinate, tabulate, summarize, and distribute technical and
other data relative to the Chesapeake Bay and its environs. Conduct or contract for studies, except
those for primary scientific research, and prepare reports on existing or potential problems within
the Bay region.
Prepare, publish, and disseminate information in reports related to the resources of the region.
Serve as an advisory board to any requesting agency of the member states on matters of interstate
concern.
Make application for grants, services, or other aids as may be available from public or private
sources to finance or assist in effectuating any purposes of the Agreement, and receive and accept
such aids on terms and conditions as may be required by the laws of the respective signatory
states.
Purchase administrative supplies and lease sufficient office space if such space is not otherwise
made available for its use.
Exercise such other powers as are granted by the Agreement and take such actions as are
necessary or appropriate for performing the duties set forth in the Agreement.
In addition, the Commission has the following stated duties:
Identify specific Bay management concerns requiring intergovernmental coordination and
cooperation and recommend to the federal, state, and local governments, which are involved in
the Chesapeake Bay region, legislative and administrative actions necessary to effectuate
coordinated and cooperative management for the Chesapeake Bay.
Consider the needs of the region for industrial and agricultural development and for gainful
employment and maintenance of a high quality environment.
Respect and support the primary role of the respective signatory states and their administrative
agencies in managing the resources of the region.
Collect, analyze, and disseminate information pertaining to the region and its resources for the
respective legislative bodies; prepare an annual report indicating the status and progress of
environmental and economic issues involving the Chesapeake Bay.